Tindol v. Shutterfly, LLC
| Melina Tindol |
| Shutterfly, LLC |
| 6:2025cv00921 |
| May 27, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Wendy W Berger |
| Nathan W Hill |
| Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) |
| 47 U.S.C. ยง 227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 18, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 17 NOTICE of Local Rule 1.11(e), which provides that, unless an order states another time, a seal under Rule 1.11 expires ninety days after a case is closed and all appeals are exhausted. To prevent the content of a sealed item from appearing on the docket after the seal expires, a party or interested non-party must move for relief before the seal expires. (Signed by Deputy Clerk). (MGB) |
Filing 16
ORDER Dismissing Case re #11 Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Clerk is directed to terminate all pending motions and close this case. Signed by Judge Wendy W. Berger on 8/18/2025. (RMF)
|
|
Filing 15
ORDER ON DISCOVERY MOTIONS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nathan W. Hill on 8/7/2025. (JOR)
|
| Filing 14 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re #12 Order filed by Shutterfly, LLC. (Salky, Mark) |
| Filing 13 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re #12 Order filed by Melina Tindol. (Hedaya, Zane) |
|
Filing 12
ORDER to SHOW CAUSE, by written memorandum on or before August 4, 2025, as to why Rule 23(e) should not require judicial approval of Plaintiff's #11 notice of voluntary dismissal. See order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nathan W. Hill on 7/24/2025. (WRT)
|
| Filing 11 NOTICE of voluntary dismissal by Melina Tindol (Hedaya, Zane) |
| Filing 10 Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Nathan W. Hill. New case number: 6:25-cv-00921-WWB-NWH. Magistrate Judge Unassigned Magistrate no longer assigned to the case. (BMW) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER of service returned executed on 06/04/2025 by Melina Tindol as to Shutterfly, LLC. (Hedaya, Zane) |
|
Filing 8
NOTICE TO COUNSEL AND PARTIES: The Middle District of Florida's revised Local Rules become effective April 1, 2024, and can be found on the Court's public website https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/local-rules. Additionally, the undersigned has issued a Standing Order, available at https://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/judges/wendy-berger, that apply to all proceedings before the undersigned. For a just and efficient resolution of this case, the parties are DIRECTED to read and comply with the Middle District of Florida's Local Rules and this Court's Standing Orders. See Local Rule 1.01(a). Failure to comply with ANY Local Rules or Court Orders may result in the imposition of sanctions including, but not limited to, the dismissal of this action or entry of default without further notice. Signed by Judge Wendy W. Berger on 5/30/2025. (RMF)
|
| Filing 7 IDEAL Advisory NOTICE : The Court emphasizes that the IDEAL procedures are intended to simplify the resolution of less complex cases. The early case conference is an opportunity for litigants to discuss settlement. In the absence of settlement, the conference is also useful in modifying the usual rules and scheduling requirements in ways appropriate to this case. The modified procedures outlined in the Chief Judge's IDEAL Order are themselves subject to modification. Thus, opting for IDEAL is a chance for counsel to exercise creativity to improve client service and professional satisfaction. (JOR) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Order Referring Case to U.S. Magistrate Judge for IDEAL Program. See attached Order for important deadlines and information about the IDEAL Program. (JOR) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS issued as to Shutterfly, LLC. (EVK) |
| Filing 4 NEW CASE ASSIGNED to Judge Wendy W. Berger and Magistrate Judge Unassigned Magistrate. New case number: 6:25-v-921-WWB-UAM. (ARL) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE of a related action per Local Rule 1.07(c) by Melina Tindol. Related case(s): No (Uddin, Faaris) |
| Filing 2 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT under Rule 7.1, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 3.03 by Melina Tindol. (Uddin, Faaris) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Shutterfly, LLC with Jury Demand (Filing fee $405 receipt number AFLMDC-23400058) filed by Melina Tindol. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons)(Uddin, Faaris) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Tindol v. Shutterfly, LLC | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Melina Tindol | |
| Represented By: | Zane Charles Hedaya |
| Represented By: | Gerald D Lane, Jr |
| Represented By: | Faaris Kamal Uddin |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Shutterfly, LLC | |
| Represented By: | Maria Santangelo |
| Represented By: | Eva Merian Spahn |
| Represented By: | Mark A. Salky |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
